Adorable Animals

Animation is a beautiful resource for filmmakers. In fact, it’s so complex that often animated films have hundreds more people working on it and the budgets can be several times larger. To give you an idea, How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) had a budget of $145,000,000. Birdman (2014), this year’s Oscar winner had a budget of only $18,000,000. That’s only about 12% of the former’s budget.

But why exactly does animation even exist? Or at least in this day and age of heightened CGI effects, is animation losing its luster?

Dreamworks and Disney (Pixar and mainstream) would beg to differ. Every year since 2001, these two giants along with a few relatively unknown studios fight their own battle amongst themselves for the coveted Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Film.

3

One of the greatest weapons of animated films is the character that everyone loves. Usually an animal or alien, these characters literally sell the film providing both an adorable companion and a comic relief in times of extreme stress.

What I wanted to look at was why these characters are so well received by audiences. In essence, what makes these so cute. In order to do so, I wanted to analyze the arguably cutest characters from both Disney and Dreamworks: Stitch and Toothless.

Toothless
Toothless

Now what these two adorable animations have in common is that they are both animals of a kind while also featuring human characteristics; Stitch plays the Ukulele, Toothless draws…etc. A lot of people that I talk to say that it is these human characteristics that they find so adorable, but I would argue that instead it is what makes them inherently animalistic that makes them appealing.

Stitch
Stitch

Let’s look at Stitch. While he is technically an “alien”, he is animalistically a dog. Lilo adopts him at a dog shelter and without the extra arms and antennae, he looks a fair amount like a dog fallen in blue food coloring.

But when Stitch is doing all of his human things (playing the Ukulele, smashing book cities, reading…etc) he becomes less of an adorable animal character and more of a human character we, as the audience identifiy with. His struggles are human in nature so we do not always respond with an urge to think him adorable or cute.

This becomes a lot more apparent in our resident Dreamworks animal, Toothless. Toothless is by nature more animalistic than Stitch. Initially, Toothless was modeled after a cat in his physical appearance, however his movements and mannerisms are far more reminiscent of a dog than a cat. In addition, unlike Stitch, Hiccup can ride Toothless, lending him a few characteristics of a horse, namely stubbornness and intelligence.

What these two have in common, though, and what I argue makes them so likeable is one defining feature: loyalty. Both Stitch and Toothless are extremely loyal to their best friend/owner. This is what audiences find so adorable. When Stitch is desperately trying to save Lilo, this is the moment audiences truly fall in love with Stitch. Likewise, when Toothless flies into the arena to protect Hiccup, audiences fully redeem his earlier coldness and fall in love with him.

2

Loyalty is both a human and animal instinct. However in this context, the loyalty of these two characters isn’t just about friendship but also about protection. This is why it is more animalistic in nature, it exhibits the master/pet kind of loyalty as opposed to the friend/friend type.

This isn’t to say that the human characteristics of these characters aren’t appealing or adorable. I just seek to argue that if they were human, they would not be nearly as adorable.

1

Suggestions This Week: Animated Films with Adorable Animals

Lilo and Stitch (2002)

How to Train Your Dragon 1 & 2 (2010 & 2014)

Mulan (1992)

Ratatouille (2007)

Up (2009)

 

God’s Not Dead

Curiosity seems to be getting the better of me a lot these days. Not that it’s necessarily a bad thing to be curious but that I’m not usually one to try new things and I definitely seem to have a hard time trying new films. One thing I really didn’t foresee trying is God’s Not Dead (2014).

Yes, this film is sponsored by the family from Duck Dynasty.
Yes, this film is sponsored by the family from Duck Dynasty.

I’m not a huge fan of blatantly religious films. “Religious Propaganda” is what they are called in the film world. Honestly, I think that when films are too obvious with their messages, they become tacky and unbelievable. What makes that a little ridiculous is that I am a very blatantly religious person. I guess maybe that makes me a bit of a cynic but I do think that there is no way that a tacky religious film is going to appeal to anyone other than the religious.

This may be one of the few cases in which I was wrong.

Now, I will not disagree that there are glaring gender and racial issues with this movie. And I am well aware of the “religious propaganda” of it. But closed-minded girlfriend and vicious Muslim father aside, the film actually might have something.

I think what makes this film stand out from others “religious propaganda” films are two things: 1) it lays out a legitimate argument including the counter argument and 2) it employs the same “everyone is connected” technique that is so successful in big Hollywood films like Valentine’s Day (2010) and New Year’s Eve (2011).

It is fairly rare to find a religious film that takes the time to justify religion or, in this case, a belief in God. A lot of films will have one or two “non-believers” that eventually come to see the “truth” after either hitting their lowest point or having a long, heartfelt talk with a “believer”. In either case, the resulting change in the non-believer is always so paper-thin and I think that has a lot to do with why Christian films have such a bad name.

It is actually interesting to note here that most films that I have seen that predominately feature a religion other than Christianity, are never just about religion. For example, Full Court Miracle (2003) is about a bunch of Jewish boys who play basketball. Fiddler on the Roof (1971), though very potently religious, is more about the political persecution of Jews in Russia. So they kind of encode their religious messages in other thing so as not to overwhelm and put off the audience members.

But that is the nice thing about God’s Not Dead. It actually takes the time to rally a legitimate argument on religion’s side. The student, Josh, presents sound evidence and logical reasoning about God’s existence and though I did not take the time to fact check every quote he brings up from outside sources, I have enough faith in the makers of this film to think that they would not have misquoted some of the world’s greatest minds for the sake of a cinematic argument.

Josh Wheadon (Shane Harper) and his atheist professor (Kevin Sorbo)
Josh Wheadon (Shane Harper) and his atheist professor (Kevin Sorbo)

Not only that but it presents different kinds of non-believers each taking after a character in the Bible. You have the professor whose struggles have lead him to disbelief (Job), the reporter who is trying to persecute other Christians (Paul) and the man who has everything he has ever wished for and doesn’t think that he needs to believe (The Prodigal Son).

I think what ties this film together is the interconnectivity of the characters in the film. It provides a more rounded and less linear film plot allowing for the film to be more realistic. Things in life do not happen one thing after another to only one person, so it’s refreshing to see a more modernist take on this film. It also helps to provide more rounded characters instead of Hollywood stereotypes.

I do strongly recommend this film to believers and atheists alike. I will, however, echo what I previously said: this film has a lot of flaws. On a scale from one to ten, I would actually give it a very generous 7.5. I did like it, but I can see some of the shoddy gender and racial representations but if you take the film for what it is (in the words of many “Religious Propaganda”) I think that is does a pretty good job.

Gods-Not-Dead-poster

Suggestions This Week: Films With Clear Messages That Don’t Suck

God’s Not Dead (2014)

Network (1976)

Schindler’s List (1993)

Red Dawn (1984) or (2012)

The Imitation Game (2014)

 

The Jolson Story

My grandmother has always had the same affinity to watch movies as I do. In fact she is the one who has introduced me to many of my favorites including Fried Green Tomatoes (1991), Steel Magnolias (1989), and Schindler’s List (1993). So when she suggested (and even purchased) The Jolson Story (1946) for me to watch, I should have popped it right into the DVD player and given it a try. But for some reason, I kept putting this one off. I finally watched it for the first time late last semester and I fell in love with it.

The Jolson Story (1946) DVD Cover
The Jolson Story (1946) DVD Cover

The Jolson Story (1946) is a biopic (or Biographic Picture) about the life of Asa Yoelson (Scotty Beckett), a young Jewish boy who has a superior talent for singing. He finds himself an act with a man named Steve Martin (William Demarest) who trains the young Yoelson in the ways of show business. As his career takes off, he changes his name to Al Jolson (Larry Parks) but also begins to make demands for himself. It’s not that he is conceited, but he’s ambitious in an industry that hadn’t seen much change in the time that it has existed.

Al rose from the ranks of vaudeville to Minstrel shows until he finally made it on Broadway bringing with him a new style of music: Jazz, and new ideas like tours and stage runways.

The Real Al Jolson
The Real Al Jolson

I don’t know what it is with Early Hollywood and biopics-or me and biopics for that matter. There is a fair amount of irony in my love of biopics because often they aren’t really all that true. But they are fun to watch and they are always success stories because there wouldn’t be much need for them otherwise.

It’s also worth mentioning that The Jolson Story is technically a musical and I love musicals about as much as I love film. And this movie isn’t just about Al Jolson, it also covers some major shifts in the history of the theatre. Odds are that not many people have ever heard of a Minstrel Show or how Jazz became a style of music on Broadway.

There are two reasons why The Jolson Story is such an interesting film for a film major. The first is because of the historical aspects of the film. The most important of these would be the Minstrel shows. So a bit of history for those of you who don’t know. The Minstrel shows or Minstrelsys began in the 1830’s. They were variety shows where a majority of the cast were white actors preforming in black face. Today they are considered horridly racist but for over 100 years, these shows were very popular.

Larry Parks in Blackface as Al Jolson
Larry Parks in Blackface as Al Jolson

A fun fact about Mistrels is that they would often involve a dance called a “Cake Walk”. This was the white actors’ way of making fun of the way that African Americans’ often danced. The funny part is that the dance that they were emulating was actually the African Americans making fun of the “stick-up-the-butt” way that the white people walked and danced. Therefore, it was white people making fun of themselves and they didn’t even know.

There is another important historical aspect of Jolson’s life in this movie is also a very important moment in film history. When Hollywood wanted a star to test out their new invention, the talking picture, they asked the most influential star on Broadway: Al Jolson. That moment in time is so important to the history of film and the reason why this film is possible.

The second reason that this film is so interesting is that it utilizes a Hollywood technique that you really can’t argue with in this film. That technique is lip-dubbing. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that Larry Parks had a lovely voice but there is only one man in the world that could sing in the distinct style of Al Jolson, and that is Al Jolson.

Larry Parks as Al Jolson
Larry Parks as Al Jolson

So when they wanted to make a movie about his life, they asked the real Al Jolson to sing his own songs. Had he not been so old at the time, he probably would have played himself (he auditioned for it). Usually I would be against lip-dubbing as a practice but this film really gives the audience the ability to hear the beautiful voice of a true Broadway and Hollywood legend. What more could you ask for?

Now, just as an obvious disclaimer, not everything this film says about Jolson is true. Hardly any Hollywood Biopics are even close to being true. However, this film is among the ranks of films that, although partially untrue, contains a fair amount of truth about the life and work of a real legend.

Suggestions This Week: Mostly True Hollywood Biopics

The Jolson Story* (1946)

Till the Clouds Roll By* (1946)

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Chaplin (1992)

Lincoln (2012)

*Musicals

The Way Shakespeare Was Meant To Be Done

Everyone knows Romeo and Juliet. In fact, odds are that everyone in our class has seen at least one movie adaptation of the play if not two. Besides the word for word adaptations there are numerous adaptations of the story to be found in every form of media. West Side Story for example is a star-crossed lover story based on Shakespeare’s forbidden love story. But despite people having done the play over and over, occasionally it is done in a new way that makes you love it all over again. That’s why this week I want to present to you: Private Romeo (2011).

Movie Poster for Private Romeo (2011)
Movie Poster for Private Romeo (2011)

What makes this film interesting and slightly odd is that it is done by only eight actors with some doubling up on parts. It’s set in a Military High School and instead of a straight read of the play, each person has their own character who eventually morphs into one or more of the timeless Shakespeare characters. It also breaks from the story occasionally to set the scene and sometimes it becomes a poorly filmed rock music video but it all adds to the effect and the message.

There’s a lot to be lost in this kind of rendition of the play. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what character the person is playing at a given time and occasionally the settings don’t exactly line up with the words. For example, the party that Romeo and his friends attend where he meets Juliet is just a bunch of the guys in a room drinking beer and playing cards. Remember that there are only eight members of the cast and only seven in this scene. Out of the context of Shakespearean grandeur, the scene shouldn’t make as much sense.

One of the classroom scenes meant to break from the traditional Shakespeare while still reading the words.
One of the classroom scenes meant to break from the traditional Shakespeare while still reading the words.

But that is where eight (relatively unknown) men make Leonardo DiCaprio and the rest of the cast of his film look like middle school children trying to read the play aloud in class. When Leo is Romeo, it’s cute because he is cute and his attractive figure embodies what we have come to think of as Romeo. But think to yourself, does he really act the part well? Does he understand the heart wrenching words Shakespeare has written from him?

But Matt Doyle and Seth Numrich get it. I mean they GET IT! It probably doesn’t hurt that after watching him in TURN, I have developed a MAJOR celebrity crush on Seth Numrich. But you can see the classical training in all of the actors because you believe what they are saying and feeling.

Now, at this point you are thinking, “Great it’s a gay Romeo and Juliet how original…” in the most sarcastic way possible. But the film isn’t really about homosexuality. Sure they are gay but you would get the same message across by just reading the play with two men and changing Juliet to something more masculine.

Private Romeo 2011 DVDRip 400MB hnmovies_s

The film is about non-conformity. Here, against the backdrop of a majorly rigid military school, you have two people meeting in secret to express themselves in their true forms. That’s why Matt Doyle is still always referred to as “Her” and “She”. That is why the film has moments where they break from the original text for some exigence or to demonstrate the rigidity of the militarianism of the school. Even the odd rock music sequences are actually a break from the conformity for the characters to be themselves. The film is a message to the audience about loving who you are and not sticking yourself into a box you don’t want to be a part of; it is taking a major theme of the play and exploring it in more depth.

I think that’s why I like it so much. Instead of a simple reading or reenactment of the play, it’s trying to do something with it.

And just in case the idea of two men as Romeo and Juliet is still particularly off putting to you, my Mom actually pointed out to me that this is the way Romeo and Juliet was performed for years after it was written. There were no female actors in the time of Shakespeare or the time immediately following. So men playing women is not an unusual Shakespearean plays.

Maybe then, Private Romeo is a more back to the basics of Shakespeare than any movie before it. It’s pretty in such an odd way. And it’s on Netflix so I have an overabundance of ability to watch it.

Suggestions This Week: Films You HAVE GOT To Give A Chance

Private Romeo (2011)

Shining Through (1992)

The Conspirator (2010)

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Into The Woods (2014)

BONUS: Hidden in the lovely words of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is my favorite line of any play, film or even song:

Romeo: I dreamt a dream tonight.

Mercutio: and so did I.

Romeo: Well, what was yours?

Mercutio: That dreamers often lie,

Romeo: in bed asleep while they do dream things true. 

Glory, Hallelujah

I’m going to write two posts this week. Mainly because I feel inspired but also because I have recently stumbled across a relatively unknown film that is only on television once in a blue moon and I would be remiss if I didn’t take advantage of its being on tonight, twice.

The film is Glory (1989). Released by Tristar Pictures in 1989, Glory tells the story of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment: the first all-Black regiment in the Civil War. It tells a true story as detailed in the letters of the regiment’s Colonel: Col. Robert Shaw. It’s a sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes inspiring and all together brilliant film.

The film poster for Glory (1989)
The film poster for Glory (1989)

The first thing that stuck out to me about this film (before watching it) is the casting. This film combines the acting talents of a young Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Lion King, The Producers) and Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride, John Paul II) with that of Denzel Washington (The Bone Collector, Flight), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption, Driving Miss Daisy) and Andre Braugher (Brooklyn Nine-Nine, City of Angels). Odd cast, huh? But it works. It really works!

My favorite scene in the film has to be towards the end when the regiment is singing and praying the night before the big battle. It’s a great moment of comradery and actually gives away the ending. It’s also the “moment of triumph”. The movie isn’t just about the Civil War, which is why the end of the war is never even mentioned in the film. It is about the coming together of whites and blacks as one unit. It’s about respect; what is due and what is given.

To a certain extent, it can almost seem like a cherry coated account of a real event. It seems almost surreal that white officers could really be so good to African American soldiers.

Major. Cabot Forbes (Elwes) leading his troops as Shaw's Second in Command.
Major. Cabot Forbes (Elwes) leading his troops as Shaw’s Second in Command.

For example, in one scene the soldiers discover that they are not to be paid as much as regular soldiers because of the color of their skin. In response they refuse to accept any wages, prompted by Private Trip (Washington). Their commanding officer, Robert Shaw (Broderick) fires a round into the sky to halt the protest and then shocks the crowd as he tears his own wage slip in half remarking that if they were not to be paid, neither would he. It’s a wonderful scene. It’s cinematically striking (the shot into the air calls the attention of even the most uninvested viewer) and it’s a very inspiring and beautiful moment.

To add to the saintly light cast upon Col. Shaw, there is an important contrasting scene in the movie. Shaw travels at one time with another black regiment to deliver supplies. Where Shaw is compassionate and his regiment is disciplined, the other commander is coarse, rude and unsavory referring to his regiment as “monkeys” and “children”.

When the two regiments arrive at their destination, the commander of the other regiment has his troops pillage the town and requests that Shaw’s soldiers set the town to flame. Initially, Shaw refuses but the other commander threatens Shaw and, in danger of losing his troops to the “evil” commander, he orders that the town be set to flame.

The real Col. Robert Shaw (left) and Matthew Broderick portraying him (right).
The real Col. Robert Shaw (left) and Matthew Broderick portraying him (right).

The juxtaposition of these two very different commanders and regiments is meant to glorify the 54th and Robert Shaw. In fact the director, Edward Zwick, does this a lot. Even individually, the members of the 54th serve to contrast each other and make the whole group seem like the ideal regiment.

But these people are believably righteous. Robert Shaw was the child of an abolitionist and grew up best friends with an African American. He really hadn’t experienced the discrimination and hatred towards blacks that was out there in the world. So though he seems “holier than thou”, he really was a nondiscriminatory man.

Members of the 54th preparing for battle.
Members of the 54th preparing for battle.

This film is real, stripped down to the bare bones and it means something. This is the kind of film that I want to make. I want my films to touch audiences who connect with the characters whether it is a period piece or a film about our generation. That is what film is for. Superhero movies and films about magical lands and sorcery are fun and I love them just as much as everyone else, but “poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for” (Dead Poets Society, 1989), and that is what film can be.

 

I’m quite sure that this trailer is fan made but it does a much better job than the 1980’s one that was created for the film.

Suggestions This Week: Realistic War Films

Glory (1989)

The Patriot (2000)

Inglorious Bastards (2009)

Patton (1970)

Platoon (1986)

The Super Divide

I realized that although I have alluded to them several times, I have yet to do a post about one of the most popular types of films in Hollywood today: Superhero Films. Now, there are literally hundreds of superhero films that I could list here and talk about but what I find most interesting about this genre is the differences between the intended demographics of the three major franchises: X-Men, Avengers and Batman.

Ever since Michael Keaton and then later Christian Bale took over the role of the caped crusader, the Batman franchise has been increasingly geared towards adults and older audiences. Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker wasn’t exactly geared towards children, although that hasn’t really stopped them from watching them. This was a huge shift from the Batmen of the past. In fact audiences were upset that such a dark turn had been taken on a TV show and movie franchise that, for the most part, was a joke. I mean who says, “Holy Barnacle Batman, let me get the Shark Repellent Bat-spray”? Apparently Burt Ward but now, Robin doesn’t really exist and the Joker murders people with pencils so it’s safe to say that there has been a major shift in style and demographic.

On the other end of the scale, the Avengers side of Marvel has been increasingly promoted towards younger audiences in addition to their typical demographics. Although the movies remain PG-13 and their movies still contain their fair share of violence, these films are really reaching out to children. There’s no better example of this is the increase of Avenger shows and appearances on Disney Channel. Several of the Avengers were recently on an episode of Phineas and Ferb (2013). So now, not only are these action-superhero films appealing to teens and adults but also to kids.

Phineas and Ferb - Mission Marvel Preview 1
The Avengers/Phineas and Ferb special.

What have come to sit more directly in the middle of this road over time are the X-Men films. I think that it is the demographic of the film that has made this franchise my favorite. That or James McAvoy.

I mean, he was great in this film.
I mean, he was great in this film.

The interesting thing that Marvel has done with this franchise is their shift from the main series to X-Men: First Class (2011) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). This primarily served two purposes. The first was to take a break from the current series. They had made 3 movies with the current cast and a Wolverine spin-off and the writers felt the time had come for a change. The new direction offered them a chance to introduce new characters and faces to an already popular franchise.

The other reason why Marvel decided to make this drastic shift was because they wanted the X-Men to take on the middle demographic. Since the original films were geared towards the same demographic as the Avengers films, it created conflicting fan bases. Not that this particularly hurt Marvel in any way but by shifting the focus of the X-Men, Marvel simply widened its fan base exponentially.

That shift all had to start somewhere and Marvel started with X-Men: First Class (2011). Personally, I have to admit that I saw First Class before I saw any of the other films. I wasn’t much into superhero films until James McAvoy (who I had a vested interest in since Penelope (2006)) was slated to be in the film. Even then, my siblings had to convince me to watch it. I loved it and quickly sought out to see the original films.

xmen1

I think on top of everything else that makes the movie great is the backstories weaved in the film. Professor X and Magneto were two characters that a wide range of the public already knew a lot about and Marvel had to be careful not to step on too many toes in order to create the film. It needed to be different enough to stand on its while being close enough to the original that it made logical sense. In the end they not only did this but also started a new franchise that, I believe, will be very successful in the future.

Suggestions This Week: Superhero Films

Batman (1966)

X-Men: First Class (2011)

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

X2 (2003)

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

 

We Are….. Awesome

No matter what sport you play, odds are that Hollywood has put out a movie about it. Every sport from Ice Skating (Ice Princess, 2005) to Lacrosse (Crooked Arrows, 2012) to even Soap Box Derby (25 Hill, 2011). Some of these movies do a terrible job of portraying the sport that they are about. For an example of this, ask Hannah about Ice Princess.

But occasionally, a sport movie comes along that not only accurately portrays the sport it depicts but also really touches it’s audience. A prime example of this is the movie We Are Marshall (2006).

11176534_800

My parents actually first introduced me to this movie. I distinctly remember sitting in the living room of my house and my parents asking if I had seen the movie. I mistook it for another movie and responded, “Oh yeah, it’s so funny.” I think for a solid minute my parents thought that they were going to have to throw me into the loony bin. Finally my mom said, “It’s not funny, it’s really sad.” And it is in a lot of ways but it’s a fantastic film.

We Are Marshall is based on the true story of Marshall University in 1971. In 1970, a plane on its way back from a football game crashed just inside the limits of Huntington, West Virginia. On the plane was almost the entire football team, the coaching staff and a lot of fans and all of them died. Essentially it tore the whole town apart. The movie covers how Marshall decided and then succeeded in rebuilding the football team from literally the ground up. They even went as far as to petition the NCAA to allow them to play freshman first year which at that time was against regulation. In the end, they only win a few games their first season but they do manage to overcome enormous odds in order to accomplish their goals.

The Real Coaches and the Actors Who Play Them
The Real Coaches and the Actors Who Play Them

I think one of the best parts of this movie is Matthew McConaughey’s acting. He plays the new head football coach Jack Lengyel who is an enthusiastic, confident and kind hearted man thrust into an uncomfortable situation. But for him it isn’t uncomfortable in the sense that he has to take this job. But you get a sense, through his phenomenal acting, that he is trying to balance hope with remembrance. You really feel the real Jack Lengyel through McConaughey’s performance. One of the most beautiful moments of this film is the speech that he gives at the graves of some of the old players. It’s so iconic in the sense that he never knew these kids and yet he speaks for a town that watched them grow up. It’s really very moving.

I mean, look at that enthusiasm!
I mean, look at that enthusiasm!

I also really enjoy the style of the film. The movie is edited a lot like a football highlight reel. For those of you who have never had to compile a recruitment video, which I’m assuming is all of you, recruitment videos always have a title slide between game footage to denote the game, time and often the score of the game. So on top of the intricate filming of the struggles of the coaching staff, you also see the “game film” in a very realistic way.

We Are Marshall is a rarer gem in the realm of sport movies. It is gorgeously filmed and the acting is stellar. It is definitely a film worth taking the time to watch, but bring tissues.

Suggestions This Week: Great Sports Films

We Are Marshall (2006)

A League of Their Own (1992)

Hoosiers (1986)

Secretariat (2010)

Bend it Like Beckham (2002)

Too Many Effects, So Little Plot

So this past weekend, my roommate and I went to go see Lucy (2014) at the HUB. I have very mixed feelings about the movie. Aesthetically, the movie was brilliant. The special effects were fantastic. There is no doubt about that. But that was all the movie was, special effects.

Movie Poster for Lucy (2014)
Movie Poster for Lucy (2014)

We will start with the plot; not that there’s much of one to speak of. Lucy (Scarlet Johansson) is a whiny, whimpy college student in Taiwan who gets mixed up in the wrong deal. She gets captured by some thugs who do a simple surgery to put some unidentified drug in her stomach. In transit, one of her captors gets angry, beats her up, you fill in the blanks. As the commercials never fail to mention, Lucy, with the help of this magical drug that is in her system, will soon be able to use 100% of her brain. Eventually she does, interesting things happen and that, my friends, is Lucy.

And that isn’t a simplification, that is literally the whole plot. Well, Morgan Freeman is there playing a professor/scientist that I can’t quite remember the name of, but in the end who cares? It’s Morgan Freeman.

And that is why I didn’t like this movie. More than anything else, this movie was just made so that Universal could show off everything it can do with CGI. And Scarlet Johansson and Morgan Freeman were just part of that ploy. If this movie looked remotely interesting to you, why was that? Odds say because Freeman and Johansson were going to be in it. Who can resist a movie with God and the Black Widow in it?

Morgan Freeman and Scarlet Johansson in Lucy (2014)
Morgan Freeman and Scarlet Johansson in Lucy (2014)

Their acting is stellar, though. Don’t get me wrong. It’s probably the second best thing about the movie, next to the special effects.

And lets look at those special effects for a moment. Universal plays a lot with green screening in this film. At one point Johansson is traveling in a desk chair through time and space. It’s done rather seamlessly and had it made any logical sense, would have been very believable.

Scarlet Johansson in Lucy (2014)
Scarlet Johansson in Lucy (2014)

Universal also plays with making this a bit of an experimental film. Like Tarnation, Lucy juxtaposes in clips that don’t really make a lot of sense to represent symbolism in key moments of the film. There are also title screens inserted in to show how much brain capacity Lucy has attained. It’s probably the most logical way to show the audience where her brain is at.

There are also a lot of special fighting effects used in this film. That and car chases. They are a bit unoriginal but aesthetically appealing in the context of a film that pretty much only values special effects.

Okay, so maybe I really didn’t like the movie. The special effects were cool, but that’s all the movie was. The movie plot itself made no sense and really was unnecessary. Do I feel that I wasted two and a half hours? Yes, there are far better movies to watch if you want to see some cool special effects. But I guess as a film major I have to take the bad with the good.

Suggestions This Week: Special Effects Films

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006)

Back to the Future (1985)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (2005)

Independence Day (1996)

Studio System Cinema

Ok guys, so this may just be the most important post that I will have on here. This week I wanted to delve into one of my favorite eras of film to pull out the real unrealized gem of the older cinema: movie musicals.

Now, most of you upon hearing the word “musical” either inwardly cringe in horror or distaste, or you think of movies like High School Musical (2006) or Les Miserables (2012). I love these as well (I am a theatre kid after all) but many of my favorite films are the musicals made during the “studio system” of Hollywood.

So, the studio system. Odds are not many of you have ever heard of such a thing. Believe it or not, I didn’t either until Junior year in my Study of Film class. Even if you haven’t heard of the era, you have certainly heard of many of the movies. For example, Singin’ in the Rain (1952) and The Wizard of Oz (1939). Believe it or not, these films were filmed, edited and processed in the course of only a couple of weeks. That was just how the Studio System worked.

The Studio System proved to be the most effective way to make movies which is why from the 1920’s to the 1960’s this was the dominant way of producing films. The Studio System worked as exactly what it sounds like: a system. A certain number of actors and actresses were contracted to a certain studio (usually one of the “Big Five”: MGM, Paramount, RKO Radio, Warner and Fox) and only made pictures for that studio. So Judy Garland, who was contracted by MGM, was never allowed to do films with Paramount or Fox.

The Big Five Studios
The Big Five Studios

The only breach of this code that I know of happened on a film called Sergeant York (1941) and the real life Sergeant York requested that a certain actor (Gary Cooper) be the only one to portray himself. It was only through much legal difficulty and a trade of an actress (Bette Davis) that this move was allowed.

But the easiest movie to make during the studio system was actually musicals. The studios cranked out hundreds of them. And why wouldn’t they when stars like Gene Kelly (Singin’ in the Rain) and Frank Sinatra (Guys and Dolls)? In the 30’s, film had just recently aquired sound and the studios used these “talkies” to showcase the musical and acting talents of their stars. An excellent portrayal of this is actually the movie Singin’ in the Rain which depicts life for actors and actresses as the “talkies” became more prevalent.

Singin' in the Rain Movie Poster
Singin’ in the Rain Movie Poster

And lets not forget the tap dancing! Most movie musicals during that time had some kind of tapping in it. All of them from White Christmas (1954) to Singin’ in the Rain. It is such a skill and actors like Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor (Singin’ in the Rain) made it look easy!

My favorite studio system movie, however, is Anchors Aweigh (1945). I could spend all day talking about why I love it but here are the top three reasons to close out this post:

  1. Frank Sinatra-I literally could listen to his beautiful voice all day. And his acting is quite stellar too. He doesn’t get nearly enough credit for how real he appears on film.
  2. The Gene Kelly/Jerry dance sequence-Little known fact, Gene Kelly actually did a lot of his own choreography. And this movie is no exception. But what is even cooler is the fact that this dance sequence is with an animated character (Jerry from Tom and Jerry). It’s just too cool.
  3. Little Donald Martin-The film features a little boy that just wants to join the Navy. Although he has that annoying old movie child voice, he’s still a cutie!

Suggestions This Week: Studio System Musicals

The Pirate (1948)

Singin’ in the Rain (1952)

An American in Paris (1951)

Take Me Out to the Ball Game (1949)

White Christmas (1954)

The Greatest Game Ever Played

If you grew up with Disney Channel like I did, you may remember a show called Even Stevens. It featured the very young Shia LaBeouf and Christy Carlson Romano. Little known fact, Christy is actually the voice of Kim Possible, another old Disney Channel favorite of mine. Like most Disney channel child actors, Christy and most of the cast of Even Stevens continued to only do Disney shows and movies after the show ended in 2003. But Shia LaBeouf broke the mold eventually and is now known more for his daring action films than his humble Disney roots. This feat I attribute largely to the 2005 golf film entitled The Greatest Game Ever Played which I sincerely feel is the best acting he has done in his entire career, not to mention that it is a great film.

Shia Labeouf
Shia Labeouf as Francis Ouimet

The Greatest Game Ever Played is a lovely biopic that follows two of the greatest golfers in history: Harry Vardon and Francis Ouimet. Locked in a heated battle, the movie many concentrates on the 1913 US Open Golf Championship where amateur Ouimet faces off against his idol and 1900 US Open Champion, Harry Vardon. On the surface, this looks like just another feel-good Disney movie about underdogs and in many ways it is.

Harry Vardon is a poor English man who has an unusual gift for the sport of golf but finds that he is not easily accepted into the tour of professional golfers who are all very wealthy and proper. This story is mirrored in the life of Francis Ouimet. So, in a way, a feel-good Disney movie about underdogs is yielded.

Stephen Dillane as Harry Vardon
Stephen Dillane as Harry Vardon

But if that was all this movie managed to do, we wouldn’t much care about it. One of the things that his movie really excels at is the artistry. I think that’s why I love it so much. Bill Paxton (Titanic, Twister) does such a fantastic job directing the film in such a way that suspense is created while being careful to maintain the integrity of the sport and the event. Not many people would say that golf is a very exciting sport to watch. And even those with an interest in the sport find that the sport is often very confusing as far as rules and scoring. It doesn’t rely very heavily on a previous knowledge of the sport or even of the event it mainly depicts.

Director Bill Paxton
Director Bill Paxton

The directing and artistry are gorgeous and the acting takes it over the top. The interesting aspect of this film is the fact that you have these two very similar characters that have extremely different ways of dealing with adversity. You have Harry Vardon, played by Stephen Dillane (Game of Thrones), who takes the adversity with cynical silence. He has this disposition on film of a man who knows that he is the better golfer and is going to let his talking be done on the golf course. And then there’s Ouimet (Shia LaBeouf). I already stated that I think that this is his best acting.

Here’s why: First, he maintains this childish innocence in the film. He portrays Ouimet as exactly what he is, a kid thrust into the grown up world. Second, there is such a refined nature to this Shia LaBeouf not seen in many of his other films. It has a lot to do with the time period in which this film is set. I just feel that he really epitomizes both sides of the social ladder in this film really well. He plays the man and he also plays the kid. I find this versatility to be very appealing. And third, look at this kid. He’s not in that awkward teenage stage anymore but he doesn’t look over buffed for the camera like he does in the Transformers movies.

Suggestions This Week: Feel-Good Movies About Underdogs

The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)

Rudy (1993)

Invincible (2006)

The Muppets (2011)

Joyful Noise (2012)